Recently a controversy related to the Southern Baptist Convention erupted on Twitter regarding whether or not suicide is sin and murder. Some participants in the discussion were adamant that suicide is a sin and murder. Others insisted the aforementioned view is not only wrong, but harmful. For example, Susan Codone, a member of the Leadership Council at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted to those she believed may have been harmed by a pastor’s tweet claiming that “suicide is self-murder.”
In this article, Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer argue, “Whites are not corporately guilty for their ancestors’ racial sins (much less the sins of historical strangers) and do not need to corporately repent for them.”
in this series shows “that Revoice teaches ‘gay Christians’ to separate their same-sex sexual attraction from their same-sex attraction, and then, to sublimate or turn their same-sex attraction to holiness.”
argues “that Revoice’s logic concerning turning same-sex attraction to holiness is unbiblical and absurd, and the absurdity is clearly revealed when their logic is applied to abnormal sexual desires that are more prominent in the population than homosexuality.”
shows “that frotteurism cannot be turned to holiness either. And it also shows that sexual desires that are less prominent in the population, like transvestism, cannot be turned to holiness.”
shows “that no pattern of sinful desire, whether an unnatural pattern of sexual desire (sexual orientation) like homosexuality or a common sinful pattern of desire like adultery or greed, nothing contrary to God can be turned to holiness.”
shows that pride and unrighteous anger are not exceptions and cannot be turned to holiness.
In this podcast episode of The Briefing, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., addresses the recent Christianity Today article on polyamory.
In a 2013 essay, Thabiti Anyabwile wrote regarding same-sex marriage, “Turns out that being civil about indecency actually hurts the traditional cause.” His point was that polite discourse about abominable behavior plays a role in normalizing such behavior. It is not difficult to see why that would be the case. Polite discourse minimizes and, over time, neutralizes the instinct of moral revulsion. While moral revulsion alone is not enough to sustain ethical practice over time, it is an important community-shaping element. Healthy communities express moral revulsion at that which is truly abominable, and the healthy effect of such revulsion is a natural deterrent toward said behavior within the community. People who are socialized into being appalled at what is appalling to God have the blessing of a moral compass shaped according to truth. Anyabwile’s “gag reflex” argument highlights an important component of the effects of our discourse about sin. It is entirely possible to speak of sin in a way that is technically correct, while still lacking entirely in true moral fiber, leading to the further erosion of social norms and the withering away of a protective moral revulsion.
In this article, non-SBC author Daniel Schrock comments at length on an objection raised when, “the 47th General Assembly opted (after a lengthy and impassioned debate) to ‘declare the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’s ‘Nashville Statement’ on biblical sexuality as a biblically faithful declaration and refer the ‘Nashville Statement’ to the Committee on Discipleship Ministries for inclusion and promotion among its denominational teaching materials.'”
In this article, Thabiti Anyabwile writes, “I think it would be a good thing if more people were gagging on the reality of the sexual behavior that is now becoming public law, protected, and even promoted in public schools.”
In this podcast episode, the hosts focus on, “Ideas like: intersectionality, whiteness, and privilege, among others. All of these ideas have their roots in something called Critical Theory. Today, we talk with Neil Shenvi and Matt Warner, who discuss whether Critical Theory is a threat or is something that can be edifying for Christians to employ.”
Critical theory locates the sin of oppression in systems rather than in individual acts. Consequently, it argues that guilt accrues to all who belong to an oppressive class, regardless of their personal intentions or actions, due to the benefits they receive from the oppression of minorities. To take a prominent example, white men in America are to be regarded as stained from birth with the sins of racism and misogyny by virtue of their (involuntary) participation in the two privileged categories of “white” and “men.” In order to be imputed with the guilt of these two sins, a white male need not actually perform any racist or misogynistic actions. All he must do is exist in a society that grants him privileges for his ethnicity and gender. Therefore, he relates to members of other groups (minorities and women) with a vacuum of moral authority that requires him to humble himself, repent, and seek atonement and absolution from them. This is the basic framework by which sin, guilt, and justification are understood through the lens of critical theory.
This post is the fourth in a series addressing New Liberalism and the Southern Baptist Convention. “New Liberalism” is a catch-all term for what some see as a theological threat similar to the liberalism of the previous century. This series does not assume that New Liberalism is in the SBC, but is intended to more clearly delineate the concept of New Liberalism in relation to the SBC.
The progenitors of the new progressivist tendency in Christianity might truly believe that they believe the Bible, might earnestly desire others to believe the Bible, and at the very least want others to believe that they believe the Bible. Thus sociological theories are read back into the text of Scripture in much the same way that scientific theories were read back into the text of Scripture, and especially Genesis 1-11, in the old liberalism. Terms are lifted from their texts to create a new Christianity commensurate with and thus subordinate to the spirit of the age.